How are you defining “their markets?”
By platform.
It would be impossible for a Conservative to create a social media platform that could rival Facebook.
What platform is Twitter part of (other than Twitter itself)?
You’re making my point. Thanks.
There’s nothing similar out there that has more than a small nibble of that market.
Hannity.com forums are basically Twitter, only a smaller part of the market. There are a billion other small markets.
Reddit certainly rivals Twitter.
Hey guys. Think about this.
If Twitter closed down at midnight tonight, what would happen to all of those users?
CHAOS!!!
It is my opinion that there is no other platform that could fulfil the niche that Twitter provides society.
We should nationalize it for national security reasons.
Twitter is not a market. Just like Google is not a market. There is a market for Twitter and for Google, but they are not markets.
What would libs do without white Christian boogeymen?
But they don’t. The fact that Facebook has steadily been losing market share, especially over the last year, shows that it does not have monopoly power. And Twitter finally made a profit this year. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for monopoly either.
Their barriers to entry aren’t working.
You’ve got companies with massive market capitalization who have a vested interested in growing their social media platforms. There are no monopolies in sight, not even “virtual” ones.
There is no resemblance between a BBS and Twitter format wise. None at all.
FB has over 1.6Bn users world wide, none of the other “major” competitors has even a quarter of the market.
You mean, what would libs do if members of the American KKK–or whatever they call themselves–stopped hating Jews, black people, and other minorities?
Probably be happier. I like how you use the word “boogeymen,” by the way, as if you yourself didn’t see them chanting “Jews will not replace us” on television.
Once again demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
The platform is a market place for advertisers and consumers and there is nothing else similar in format that garners more than a tiny percentage of that market.
So it’s a fact then that Facebook is not a monopoly. I’m glad you were able to clear that up for yourself.
Instagram has 1Bm active users and he hasn’t been banned from there…yet.
https://www.instagram.com/real_alexjones/?hl=en
Any competitor that doesn’t fit his need for Facebook to be a monopoly will be dismissed for some reason. You’ll see.
all … what… 15 of em?
I did not at any point say they hold a “monopoly” I said they hod a "virtual monopoly’ on the format.
Now if you can’t understand the distinction I certainly can’t help you.
It’ll break down this way: he’ll argue that Facebook is a monopoly because no other platform is a generic copy of Facebook, which other companies can’t do anyway due to intellectual property concerns.
But you’re right. There are a variety of social media platforms that people use to share ideas, pictures, and videos with the rest of the Internet world, or some limited subset (like Facebook friends).
Nobody’s even mentioned Youtube yet, which is entering this sphere sneakily as well.
Let’s talk about a theoretical person–just a random, anonymous person who is not a forumer here. Let’s call her Lucy. Assume that Lucy can never admit that she’s wrong. If Lucy wants to argue that a particular social media platform is–oh, I don’t know–a monopoly, she’ll just keep narrowing the definition of the market until only one company can sit on the tip of that pin.
The problem with that form of argument is that if it is used in other types of markets, then virtually every single company that doesn’t sell generic products is a monopoly, because of the little differences, and then Lucy ends up confused by her F in economics class, because she ended up arguing for monopolistic competition or oligopoly rather than monopoly anyway.
